Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

First, yes I know the Core rules allow Deep Strike turn 1, but most (if not all) mission restrict that to turn 2. This proposal is meant to be the half-way point of both.

In just about every edition since I started in 4th, I always felt like Reserves/Reinforcements should be allowed starting with the 2nd player's first turn.

Allowing units to come in on either player's 1st turn gives player 1 too much opportunity to Alpha Strike, while restricting unit's arrival to turn 2 means player 2 has to weather 2 whole opponent turns before getting their Reinforcements.

By allowing player 2's Reserves to come in on their first turn, but not player 1's, both players get exactly 1 turn to do stuff before their opponent drops Reinforcements.
It minimizes Alpha Strike as even player 1 will have a turn to "prepare" for player 2s turn.

My son and I have been playing this way and it really makes the game feel more interactive for both of us and creates less "feel bad" situations in which the game is decided by who goes first.
Thoughts?

-

I'd probably be fine playing that way. My only hesitation is a half-formed concern about beta striking and matchups where the second player is better equipped to hide and inflict turn 1 casualties than player 1. In which case, this would functionally just move the problem rather than solving it, right?

Ex: Player 1's World Eaters spend their first turn moving forward out of cover and not doing much damage, then player 2 gets to hit them with their entire army on the top of 1.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I'd probably be fine playing that way. My only hesitation is a half-formed concern about beta striking and matchups where the second player is better equipped to hide and inflict turn 1 casualties than player 1. In which case, this would functionally just move the problem rather than solving it, right?

Ex: Player 1's World Eaters spend their first turn moving forward out of cover and not doing much damage, then player 2 gets to hit them with their entire army on the top of 1.

That's a fair concern. I should add that I'd still keep the 25% restriction on what you can put in Reserves/Deep Strike.
So realistically you'd still have 3/4 of both armies that would have to deploy on the table.

-

25% is just in strategic reserves. You can take additional deep strikers and some characters let you move additional units to reserves. Beta strikes in theory could get very big.

I don't think this change is necessary. Given new terrain rules, unshootability-at-distance abilities and strats, and the scoring advantage for the 2nd player on the last turn, I don't think there's currently an imbalance between success rates for the 1st and 2nd player. You can check with results, but I thought I heard that at long last there's no significant gap. If it aint broke, don't fix it.